Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

An actual discovery that has me baffled in light of the EU paradigm. Anybody has got any clues as to why an apparent solar system outsider has too small a charge differential coming that close to the sun (even though it's been observed after perihelion) to show a coma after spending who knows how much time away from it (in negative charged interstellar space)?

Its type was even "demoted" very quickly from a comet to an asteroid after suspicions arose from Hale Telescope's and PANSTARRS spectral observations that signaled a comet nuclei. VLT said they had it wrong. I am no comet expert (let alone hobbyist), so your input on the subject is appreciated.

I might be mistaken, but according to EU principles, long distance objects should be comets no matter what. Nuclei is all solid? Metal? Non porous? Devoid of fine dust? Metal or Di-Electric? Very inefficient or small resultant capacitor? Is this an extreme example of a double lobe shape?

An actual discovery that has me baffled in light of the EU paradigm. Anybody has got any clues as to why an apparent solar system outsider has too small a charge differential coming that close to the sun (even though it's been observed after perihelion) to show a coma after spending who knows how much time away from it (in negative charged interstellar space)?

I'm not really sure what you mean by the term 'too small. Do you mean it's too small to create a brilliant coma? I'm also personally inclined to believe that space has a net positive charge with respect to the surface of the sun due to cosmic rays (I'm a cathode sun proponent), but even NASA seems to be slowly but surely coming around to the fact that there's an electrical aspect to asteroid activity:

lepape2 wrote:Anybody has got any clues as to why an apparent solar system outsider has too small a charge differential coming that close to the sun (even though it's been observed after perihelion) to show a coma after spending who knows how much time away from it (in negative charged interstellar space)?

Hi Marc, You already know the answer, you're just being coy. The electric comet model has been demolished, that's why.

An actual discovery that has me baffled in light of the EU paradigm. Anybody has got any clues as to why an apparent solar system outsider has too small a charge differential coming that close to the sun (even though it's been observed after perihelion) to show a coma after spending who knows how much time away from it (in negative charged interstellar space)?

I'm not really sure what you mean by the term 'too small. Do you mean it's too small to create a brilliant coma? I'm also personally inclined to believe that space has a net positive charge with respect to the surface of the sun due to cosmic rays (I'm a cathode sun proponent), but even NASA seems to be slowly but surely coming around to the fact that there's an electrical aspect to asteroid activity:

Not all plasma discharges reach "glow mode." There are "asteroid" belt objects with orbits eccentric enough to form comas, yet those orbits are hardly "cometary." Why are they visible?

Rendezvous with Rama? Some have suggested the object might be an alien spacecraft. As with most mainstream astronomy, it's an awful lot of chowder from one oyster—like the alien megastructure around KIC 8462852.

It is also quite possible that it is not a lump of rock.Let's look at some alternative views here - and these views are also being discussed seriously by astronomers (as opposed to cosmologists) and just consider the possibility it is a derelict spacecraft.

lepape2 wrote:Anybody has got any clues as to why an apparent solar system outsider has too small a charge differential coming that close to the sun (even though it's been observed after perihelion) to show a coma after spending who knows how much time away from it (in negative charged interstellar space)?

Hi Marc, You already know the answer, you're just being coy. The electric comet model has been demolished, that's why.

Querious

I have to admit that I find it highly amusing you mainstream guys will cry "Electric Comet theory debunked" on one as yet unidentified body that we do not have real imagery of but only artists impressions, yet you cling on to Dark Matter even after this has been proved now to not exist despite tens of billions wasted looking for it (may as well go on a Unicorn hunt) and likewise the Stellar Fusion model is falsified many times over yet still taught as fact, ditto Big Bang & Cosmic Expansion.You guys really are always good for a laugh though.

You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.

Has anyone tried to use another hyperbolic mass as a reference? Especially for speed of transit through the EM field of the Sun. That, and the composition of Oumuamua, would determine whether a visible spectrum glow would be achieved?Also, has anyone pointed any non-visible-light scopes towards the thing? Are we getting any high frequency light off of it, or anything?

Peace.

Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

I have been searching for a compositional breakdown of the object to see if it has the requisite gases for the Standard Model theory of sublimation (the solar wind is in excess of 10,000K in the region of space models indicate it's orbit passed through, so ionization/sublimation should have happened). Initial finding are that it appears to be similar to an asteroid, i.e. a solid body. Without the presence of gases, Standard Model advocates can dismiss the object as an interstellar traveler and move on to bigger and better things.

The issue then moves to EU comet theory. Since the object came in from the outer reaches of the solar system to the inner solar system without developing a coma or tail then it stands to reason that EU comet theory is faced with a failed prediction. This was essentially admitted in the video. How EU comet researchers react to this will be closely watched.

Why? EU has spent decades ripping on the standard model for both failed predictions in light of observational evidence and the ad-hoc additions/subtractions to comet theory based on new observational data. Now EU is faced with a failed prediction of their own and the need for an ad-hoc addition (change to the theory in general) or subtraction (account for the object being "too small") to match the observed phenomena.

This is a very delicate matter. Sweeping it under the rug opens the door to cries of hypocricy.

verisimilitude wrote:This is a very delicate matter. Sweeping it under the rug opens the door to cries of hypocricy.

I tend to agree with you to some degree, but......

The specific EU/PC solar model that one prefers tends to have a direct influence on one's expectations from comets and asteroids which is why I personally have never had a lot of confidence in EU comet models based on Juergen's solar model. I don't really even have a problem with the 'standard" comet and asteroid models frankly. It's therefore a nearly irrelevant issue from my perspective. A so called "failure" of a specific EU comet model has little if any overall impact on EU/PC *cosmology* theory to begin with, though admittedly it *might* have some minor influence on one or more EU/PC solar theories. That is however the upper limit of it's relevance to EU/PC cosmology theory.

Compare and contrast that lack of overall impact on a cosmology model with the string of "dark matter" laboratory prediction failures of the mainstream. Not only is dark matter theory relevant to galaxy rotation theories, and mainstream galaxy cluster theories it's relevant throughout the entire LCDM *cosmology* model.

There is therefore really no comparison between the importance of the failures in these two instances. The mainstream seems to be making a really 'big deal" about a splinter in the eye of EU comet models as though they somehow have some some massive impact on EU/PC *cosmology* theory (which they don''t), while turning a blind eye to the log in their own eye on topic of 'dark matter" and it's overall impact on LCDM *cosmology* theory.

The hypocrisy factor is already 'off scale" on this issue over at ISF. They make such a "big deal" about comet models while ignoring the *massive* failure of the convection predictions of their standard solar model, and the *billion* dollar *epic* failure of exotic matter theories.

EU/PC cosmology theory can easily survive a single failed comet model. Even Juergen's EU/PC solar model can survive it too, but the LCDM cosmology model cannot survive without a form of exotic matter, and the mainstream solar model was *falsified* by SDO in 2012 and the mainstream continues to sweep that issue right under the rug five years later!

I think you're expecting us to have some instant reaction to one or two relatively unimportant EU comet predictions but what are you/they requiring of the mainstream as it relates to their falsified convection predictions, or their falsified cold dark matter models?

If these issues had equal importance to start with, it might be critical to see what reaction we have in this community to the news that one comet model bit the dust, but that's really not the case here. I personally frankly could care less about one failed comet model that I had no confidence in to begin with. I'd feel very differently however if some failed prediction of EU/PC put the whole *cosmology* theory in jeopardy, or even a whole solar model in jeopardy. That's simply not the case with a single comet theory, but that's absolutely the case with dark matter theory. Why is that issue not a "deal breaker" for LCDM? Why is that slow convection observation by SDO not a nail in the coffin of the standard solar model?

Change takes time, and I'm sure our entire EU/PC community will eventually come to grips with one failed comet theory, assuming it continues to fail. It's a big yawn from my perspective to start with. When however will the mainstream deal with their broken solar model, or their billions of dollars worth of failed predictions related to exotic matter claims? They keep burying their collective heads in the sand over the *epic* problems with their own models, while making a mountain out of a molehill as it relates to EU/PC comet theories.

Even comparing the levels of failures is absurd IMO. One issue (EU comet theories) is virtually irrelevant to the cosmology model that it comes from, whereas the other one (dark matter) is an absolute death sentence to the LCDM cosmology model that completely depends upon it's existence.

The EU comet model looked to be on stable footing until this happened.

Do I expect a rapid response? Of course not; who am I to make such demands? But as a neutral party leaning toward the EU explanation, I do feel a measured response is terribly important.

After all, from the outside looking in, EU is staring at a failed prediction. Saying it's OK because LCDM commonly makes failed predictions is unprofessional. EU needs to handle this with humility, and more importantly, with solid scientific reasoning.

Remember, nucleosynthesis was nonstandard until it was proven. Now it's part if the Standard Model. EU comet theory also has a shot at being absorbed.

And that opens the door to more funding, more projects and more satellite time. So, yeah, you may like the sublimation theory, or just not care; I'd like to think EU is on to something and have an interest in seeing their work rewarded.